Civil Case 9833-06-20 Thorwartl v. Infantiva Marketing Israel in Tax Appeal 21 inJuly 2025 - part 5

Withdrawals: 16,500

Bonuses: 99,400"

The plaintiff deposited money with the defendant no less than 17 times, in the short period from mid-April 2017 to the end of June of that year.  "At the closing date," it was written, notwithstanding those "bonuses," "the balance sheet in the account was: $0.00" (Appendix 19).  The plaintiff signed a "settlement agreement", in which she waived any claim she had or would have against RTC, in exchange for the sum of $13,000 and against the closure of her account, and with an undertaking to keep her claims and the settlement itself confidential (Appendix 20).

The Essence of Defendant 1 and the Question of Rivalry

7. The defense sought to argue, even though defendant 1 did not defend herself, did not present evidence and in any case could not stand behind such a claim, that the plaintiff was not a quarrel. Because, the brand RTC was operated by a foreign company, Icon Markets Her name, and she was the one who put the trading platform and the representatives.  Defendant 1, at most, provided "services" to that foreign company and in any case did not act with the plaintiff.  Defendants 2 and 5, in their testimonies, raised this claim and "directed" the plaintiff to place her petitions at the door of one, Mr. Salomon "Sully" Kroc, which is the owner of Icon He was allegedly one of the defendant's clients.

However, the defendants did not bring this person's testimony and did not prove their claim in any other way.  Nor did they file a notice to third parties against that company or its owners.  Defendant 5, Mr. Hirsch, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not contact Icon Marketsfollowing the filing of this lawsuit, let alone ask it to fund his defense expenses.  This is despite the fact that in the engagement agreement with this foreign company, which was presented to the court, it was written in black and white that in any lawsuit filed against defendant 1 in matters related to Icon, the latter would bear the defense's funding.  "I have nothing to do with it," the defendant tried to explain, as if this answer was satisfactory, "with Solly Kroc for at least the last five [the] years...  I did not check" (Transcript, at p. 19, paras. 18-19; p. 20, s. 1).

8. On the other hand, the plaintiff presented a report of an investigation company, which the defendants were unable to contradict, not even in the cross-examination of the representative on behalf of this company. Ms. Carmit Stroll. The report detailed that the investigation company contacted a person named David PaulVensky, who advertised himself on the social network Who, who worked as an artistic director (Art Director) for defendant 1 and designed the online brand for it: RTC.  In a telephone conversation that took place with him and the reliability of the transcript, the plaintiff supported the opinion of the transcriber, Ms. Orly Gavison, the representative of the investigation company impersonated the person who wanted to recruit the Mr. Polonsky To work on some project.  He was asked: "When did you work at the [Defendant 1] Initiative? And he replied: "Five years ago" (Transcript, p. 3, paras. 12-13).  This former employee of defendant 1 also confirmed that he worked as a salaried employee for the defendant and designed the brand for it: RTC (In his words: RTC"Yes, yes, Royal Trade Something...  RTC It's another kind of [brand] of Infantiva].  I made a design page for it."Name, at p. 4, para. 10; p. 5, paras. 7-11; p. 6, paras. 18-20).  The defendants, and especially defendant 2 when his name was mentioned, found it difficult to deal with the additional statement of Mr. Polonsky In the same conversation: "Samuel Falcon [defendant 2, the owner of defendant 1 and the manager registered therein], he was my manager" (Name, ibid., in para. 21).

When asked about this in his interrogation, defendant 5 added and admitted that Ms. Asses – as recalled testified that, as an employee of defendant 1 she served as a sales representative on a trading platform – worked for this defendant (transcript, at p. 20, paras. 2-4).  "I didn't know her very well," the defendant tried afterwards, "I don't remember" (ibid., at paras. 8-14); But this did not erase his original answer.  The witness further admitted that another employee of the defendant, Ms. Ortal Edri, provided sales services in a commercial arena until she terminated, in November 2016, her employment with the defendant.

9. From the aforesaid, only one insight can emerge: Defendant 1 extended its hand in the operation of a trading platform, including in late 2016 and early 2017. This was in direct contrast to the witness's statement, in the affidavit, that already in mid-2016 defendant 1 ceased to be fully involved in such sales.  He was also asked about this in the cross-examination.  His answers found it difficult to put my mind at ease: